Introduction
Current guidelines for treating GBS do not recommend combining the two available treatments, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) and therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE), in any sequential order due to a lack of evidence of additional benefit (1–3). A reference work on GBS specifically recommends against TPE after IVIG (4). Nevertheless, combination therapy, mostly IVIG followed by TPE for difficult-to-treat GBS, is still reported (5–7). This practice has also been directly observed by and reported in personal communications to the author.
The question therefore arises: why do clinicians follow non-recommended procedures when confronted with less-than-optimal response to IVIG? And is there any rationale to support it? Here we try to find an answer to these questions in light of the current observational evidence, immunopathogenesis of the disease, and the mechanisms of action of the two therapeutic treatments.
Pathophysiology of GBS
Guillain–Barré Syndrome (GBS) is an acute autoimmune polyradiculoneuropathy which often follows bacterial or viral infections (4). Molecular mimicry is the proven mechanism mediating autoimmunity after C. Jejuni infection in the axonal variants of GBS (acute motor axonal neuropathy, AMAN, and acute motor and sensory axonal neuropathy, AMSAN) and is a consequence of the structural similarity between the bacterial lipooligosaccharide and the GM1 and GD1a gangliosides present in the nodes of Ranvier and paranodal areas of peripheral nerves (8, 9). The pathogenesis of the demyelinating variant (acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, AIDP) of GBS is less understood. Although some cases might be associated with anti-galactocerebroside autoantibodies, autoimmunity in AIDP appears to be driven by T-cell activation and cytokines like IFN-γ, TNF-α, and IL-6 (10–12).
Indeed, most patients suffering from GBS test negative for anti-ganglioside antibodies, especially in the clinical-electrophysiological AIDP variant, suggesting that other immune-mediated mechanisms are involved in GBS and that such alternative mechanisms are prevalent in the demyelinating variant (13). Recently, autoreactive CD4+ cytotoxic T helper 1 and CD8+ T cells targeting antigens of the peripheral nerve myelin sheath were detected in patients with AIDP (14). Nevertheless, anti-GM1 antibodies can also be found in AIDP (15). Moreover, both axonal and demyelinating subtypes of GBS can be mediated by complement-fixing anti-GM1 antibodies (16).
Binding of the C1q complement component to antibodies recognizing peripheral nerves activates the classical complement pathway on the nerve surface, thus driving neuroinflammation and nerve damage (17, 18). Evidence also suggests that classical complement activation underlies nerve injury in GBS regardless of axonal or demyelinating pathophysiology (17, 18).
The axonal vs. demyelination dichotomy in GBS diagnosis is supported by the electrophysiological study of nerve conduction, classically capable of distinguishing signs of axonal degeneration, like decreased distal compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitudes, from signs of damage to the myelin sheet, such as increased CMAP latency and temporal dispersion. Nevertheless, electrophysiology too might sometimes fail to be conclusive especially in the early phase of disease. Indeed, both demyelinating and axonal forms may manifest with nerve conduction blocks as shown by reduced ratio of proximal vs distal CMAPs. These blocks are usually longer lasting in AIDP whereas they tend to resolve quickly in anti-GM1 associated AMAN/AMSAN. The rapidly resolving conduction blocks in axonal GBS forma have therefore been named reversible conduction failure (RCF) and are considered a sign of nodal dysfunction.
Current guidelines for GBS therapy
The previous paragraph briefly described the variability in the molecular mechanisms underlying a diagnosis of GBS. Two patients with the same diagnosis of GBS might be victims of either abnormal T-cell activation targeting myelin, predominant molecular-mimicry-elicited humoral autoimmunity damaging the nodal-paranodal portions of the nerve, or both.
Nevertheless, neither the clinical-electrophysiological aspects nor the immunopathogenetic mechanisms of the disease are of therapeutic relevance in clinical practice (1).
Currently, GBS therapy consists of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) and therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE). Historically, TPE was the first treatment adopted (19). Subsequent RCTs comparing IVIG to TPE did not show evidence for superiority of one therapy over the other, and there are currently no identified subgroups of patients showing increased benefit from either TPE, IVIG, or TPE followed by IVIG (1). The European guidelines and the latest GBS reference work from The Lancet both argue that TPE after IVIG washes out the previous treatment, which is considered expensive and irrational (1, 4). Indeed, although direct evidence on IVIG removal by TPE is actually limited, immunoglobulins are likely to be significantly removed by plasma exchange (20).
Pharmacodynamics of IVIG
IVIG comprises about 90% IgG and exerts immunomodulatory functions through a variety of mechanisms (21). It can bind and neutralize circulating autoantibodies, the anaphylatoxins C3a and C5a, and other complement proteins. At high doses, IgG in IVIG saturates activating Fcγ receptors (FcγRs) on immune cells, thereby blocking their activation and reducing immune complex-driven inflammation and autoimmunity. IVIG also suppresses the activation of monocytes and macrophages and interferes with the maturation and differentiation of dendritic cells. In addition, it promotes the release of anti-inflammatory cytokines by innate immune cells and exerts cytotoxic effects on neutrophils and eosinophils. IVIG can trigger apoptosis in dendritic cells as well as effector Th1 and Th17 cells, while enhancing immunosuppressive pathways through expansion of regulatory T cells. Furthermore, it inhibits B-lymphocyte proliferation, thereby modulating antibody production. Arumugham and Rayi provide a detailed overview of all these mechanisms (21). In sum, IVIG exerts a modulating effect on innate, humoral, and cell-mediated immunity, contributing to its clinical efficacy.
Mechanism of action of TPE
TPE exerts its effect by removing circulating antibodies, immune complexes, complement factors, cytokines, and other pro-inflammatory molecules (17). At the same time, the treatment may also modulate cellular immunity by altering the ratio of T helper type-1 (Th1) and type-2 (Th2) cells in peripheral blood, suggesting that TPE efficacy in dysimmune diseases goes beyond the mere mechanical removal of autoantibodies (22, 23).
Arguments for TPE after IVIG
The main justification for TPE after ineffective IVIG treatment is the lack of alternatives. When a patient's clinical condition deteriorates after timely IVIG administration, the clinician is left with the dilemma of waiting for spontaneous recovery or switching therapy. A possible third option, repeating IVIG therapy, was recently ruled out by an RCT showing that a second cycle of immunoglobulins in GBS patients with poor prognosis is not only useless but also potentially detrimental (24, 25).
TPE after IVIG might find additional theoretical support in the notion that AMAN appears to respond suboptimally to IVIG, and therefore some authors still advocate for switching treatment from IVIG to TPE in selected GBS cases, such as AMAN subtypes (5, 26). Following this argument, one might wonder why start the patient on IVIG in the first place.
Arguments against TPE after IVIG
Combination therapy is currently not indicated by any guidelines, with the exception of one isolated mention to consider the procedure in the 2020 European pediatric guidelines (1–3, 27). The main reason for not recommending the IVIG-to-TPE switch is that no available evidence suggests such a practice is useful (28). Moreover, quickly washing out IVIG may be undesirable. Exposing patients to both treatments in such a sequential order might not only expose them to the adverse events of both without any expectation of benefit, but also be counterproductive. Indeed, combining IVIG and TPE is associated with higher mortality (29), although it is expected that patients undergoing both treatments are also more severely affected by the disease.
There are additional caveats to switching from IVIG to TPE. First, it is important to differentiate between failed response to treatment and treatment-related fluctuations (TRF). TRF is defined as “one or more deteriorations after initial improvement or stabilization after treatment (plasma exchange or immunoglobulins)” and may occur days after disease onset and therapy initiation (30, 31). The key elements is distinguishing improvement or stability of the clinical course, even for just a few days after the beginning of therapy, from progressive deterioration. At present, a TRF is an indication to repeat first-line treatment, either IVIG or TPE, under the assumption that temporary improvement (or stabilization) of clinical course is sign of partial treatment efficacy, albeit insufficient in the context of ongoing autoimmune damage underlying the treatment-related-fluctuations (1, 23). Switching to TPE from IVIG in the case of a fluctuation is not only not recommended but also irrational.
Second, although GBS is classically considered a post-infectious disease, para-infectious cases may occurr (32–34). In such cases, TPE requires additional considerations. TPE might be used for treating viral infections, mainly by removing cytokines and abnormal coagulation factors (35). However, one has to consider that the procedure might also remove critically important neutralizing antibodies, whereas IVIG appears to be beneficial for both autoimmune and infectious diseases (20, 36, 37). TPE after IVIG should therefore be very critically evaluated in para-infectious GBS.
Alternatives to a problematic practice
Should we treat patients with GBS with TPE after lack of response to IVIG? We should not, in light of the evidence currently available. One possible major reason explaining why TPE is considered after IVIG in some cases of GBS despite lack of evidence, may be the frustration due to the lack of improvement or further decline of respiratory and motor functions. In such cases one must consider (and explain to the patients and relatives) that the immune-mediated attack on the peripheral nerves can result in axonal loss with classic Wallerian degeneration. This axonal degeneration may occur as the primary pathological process or as a secondary consequence. Importantly, wallerian degeneration is highly unlikely to reverse over the course of days to weeks, and therefore supportive care is of paramount importance in this phase, whereas a second line treatment like TPE after IVIG is unlikely to yield beneficial effects.
Do we need RCTs on plasma exchange after IVIG to definitively answer the question? Possibly. May we choose between TPE and IVIG as first-line therapy according to electrophysiological variant? The opinion of the author is that this might be a reasonable option if it does not delay treatment in any way. This is currently not the case given the difficulty to univocally differentiate axonal from demyelinating forms electrophysiologically due for instance to phenomena like RCF in AMAN/AMSAN. Indeed, even though exactly the RCF cases of AMAN, with or without ganglioside antibodies, are the ones that are most likely to maybe respond more promptly to TPE compared to IVIG (38), it is currently practically impossible to identify them with certainty in the first few days of the disease. Testing for anti-ganglioside antibodies is of no more help, because of the long turn-around time and not conclusive pathognomonic value. For all these reasons, the most recent European guidelines do not support the clinical distinction between axonal and demyelinating GBS. Nevertheless, a very recent publication shows promising data on the associations of the two biomarkers peripheral and periaxin with axonal and myelin damage, respectively, thus suggesting a true pathological difference (39). Further research is needed to assess if these biomarkers have a place in daily clinical practice.
Do we need more studies on specific treatment targeting specific pathogenetic mechanisms the disease? Definitely yes. Newer approaches to GBS treatment are showing remarkable efficacy including a complement C1q inhibitor, ANX005, and imlifidase (40, 41). Possibly, these approaches will obviate the need for a trial of TPE after IVIG.
Statements
Author contributions
GL: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. Support for the publication fee was provided by University of Greifswald's publication fund.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author GL declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1.
van Doorn PA Van den Bergh PYK Hadden RDM Avau B Vankrunkelsven P Attarian S et al . European Academy of Neurology/Peripheral Nerve Society guideline on diagnosis and treatment of Guillain-Barré syndrome. Eur J Neurol. (2023) 30:3646–74. doi: 10.1111/ene.16073
2.
Leonhard SE Mandarakas MR Gondim FAA Bateman K Ferreira MLB Cornblath DR et al . Diagnosis and management of Guillain-Barré syndrome in ten steps. Nat Rev Neurol. (2019) 15:671–83. doi: 10.1038/s41582-019-0250-9
3.
Connelly-Smith L Alquist CR Aqui NA Hofmann JC Klingel R Onwuemene OA et al . Guidelines on the use of therapeutic apheresis in clinical practice - evidence-based approach from the writing committee of the American Society for Apheresis: the Ninth special issue. J Clin Apher. (2023) 38:277–8. doi: 10.1002/jca.22043
4.
Shahrizaila N Lehmann HC Kuwabara S . Guillain-Barré syndrome. Lancet. (2021) 397:1214–28. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00517-1
5.
Deb J Negi G Mohan AK Sharawat IK Banerjee P Chauhan D et al . Potential advantage of therapeutic plasma exchange over intravenous immunoglobulin in children with axonal variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome: a report of six paediatric cases. Transfus Clin Biol. (2025) 32:112–7. doi: 10.1016/j.tracli.2024.11.005
6.
Al Hamdani S Yusuf Aljanabi F Isa Abdulrasool M Haitham Salman A . Child with Guillain-Barré syndrome responding to plasmapheresis: a case report. Case Rep Acute Med. (2020) 3:4–11. doi: 10.1159/000505964
7.
Stino AM Reynolds EL Watanabe M Callaghan BC . Intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange prescribing patterns for Guillain-Barre Syndrome in the United States-2001 to 2018. Muscle Nerve. (2024) 70:1192–9. doi: 10.1002/mus.28265
8.
Vriesendorp FJ Mishu B Blaser MJ Koski CL . Serum antibodies to GM1, GD1b, peripheral nerve myelin, and Campylobacter jejuni in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome and controls: correlation and prognosis. Ann Neurol. (1993) 34:130–5. doi: 10.1002/ana.410340206
9.
Ho TW Willison HJ Nachamkin I Li CY Veitch J Ung H et al . Anti-GD1a antibody is associated with axonal but not demyelinating forms of Guillain-Barré syndrome. Ann Neurol. (1999) 45:168–73. doi: 10.1002/1531-8249(199902)45:2<168::aid-ana6>3.0.co;2-6
10.
Samukawa M Hamada Y Kuwahara M Takada K Hirano M Mitsui Y et al . Clinical features in Guillain-Barré syndrome with anti-Gal-C antibody. J Neurol Sci. (2014) 337:55–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2013.11.016
11.
Oshomoji OI Ajiroba JO Semudara SO Olayemi MA Adeoye SO . Autoimmune mechanisms in Guillain-Barré syndrome subtypes: a systematic review. Bull Fac Phys Ther. (2024) 29:86. doi: 10.1186/s43161-024-00258-8
12.
Shastri A Al Aiyan A Kishore U Farrugia ME . Immune-mediated neuropathies: pathophysiology and management. Int J Mol Sciences. (2023) 24:7288. doi: 10.3390/ijms24087288
13.
Alaedini A Briani C Wirguin I Siciliano G D'Avino C Latov N . Detection of antiganglioside antibodies in Guillain-Barr'e syndrome and its variants by the agglutination assay. J Neurol Sci. (2002) 196:41–4. doi: 10.1016/S0022-510X(02)00022-9
14.
Súkeníková L Mallone A Schreiner B Ripellino P Nilsson J Stofell M et al . Autoreactive T cells target peripheral nerves in Guillain–Barré syndrome. Nature. (2024) 626:160–8. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06916-6
15.
Kuwabara S Yuki N Koga M Hattori T Matsuura D Miyake M et al . IgG anti-GM1 antibody is associated with reversible conduction failure and axonal degeneration in Guillain-Barre syndrome. Ann Neurol. (1998) 44:202–8. doi: 10.1002/ana.410440210
16.
Campbell CI McGonigal R Barrie JA Delaere J Bracke L Cunningham ME et al . Complement inhibition prevents glial nodal membrane injury in a GM1 antibody-mediated mouse model. Brain Commun. (2022) 4:fcac306. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcac306
17.
van den Berg B Walgaard C Drenthen J Fokke C Jacobs BC van Doorn PA . Guillain-Barré syndrome: pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. Nat Rev Neurol. (2014) 10:469–82. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2014.121
18.
McGonigal R Cunningham ME Yao D Barrie JA Sankaranarayanan S Fewou SN et al . C1q-targeted inhibition of the classical complement pathway prevents injury in a novel mouse model of acute motor axonal neuropathy. Acta Neuropathol Commun. (2016) 4:23. doi: 10.1186/s40478-016-0291-x
19.
Wijdicks EFM . The self-confirmatory history of plasmapheresis and IVIG. Neurocrit Care. (In Press). doi: 10.1007/s12028-024-01968-6
20.
Cheng CW Hendrickson JE Tormey CA Sidhu D . Therapeutic plasma exchange and its impact on drug levels: an ACLPS critical review. Am J Clin Pathol. (2017) 148:190–8. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqx056
21.
Arumugham VB Rayi A . Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). In: StatPearls. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing (2025).
22.
Querol L Lleixà C . Novel immunological and therapeutic insights in Guillain-Barré syndrome and CIDP. Neurotherapeutics. (2021) 18:2222–35. doi: 10.1007/s13311-021-01117-3
23.
Tonev DG Momchilova AB . Therapeutic plasma exchange in certain immune-mediated neurological disorders: focus on a novel nanomembrane-based technology. Biomedicines. (2023) 11:328. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11020328
24.
Walgaard C Jacobs BC Lingsma HF Steyerberg EW van den Berg B Doets AY et al . Second intravenous immunoglobulin dose in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis (SID-GBS): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. (2021) 20:275–83. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30494-4
25.
van Tilburg SJ Huizinga R Kuitwaard K Sassen SDT Walgaard C van Doorn PA et al . If it does not help, it might hurt: Pharmacodynamics of a second IVIg course in Guillain-Barré syndrome. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. (2025) 12:966–75. doi: 10.1002/acn3.52313
26.
Kalita J Misra UK Chaudhary SK Das M Mishra A Ranjan A et al . Outcome of Guillain-Barré syndrome following intravenous immunoglobulin compared to natural course. Eur J Neurol. (2022) 29:3071–80. doi: 10.1111/ene.15500
27.
Korinthenberg R Trollmann R Felderhoff-Müser U Bernert G Hackenberg A Hufnagel M et al . Diagnosis and treatment of Guillain-Barré Syndrome in childhood and adolescence: an evidence- and consensus-based guideline. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. (2020) 25:5–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpn.2020.01.003
28.
Roe T Gordon A Gourd N Thomas C Ward J Osman C et al . Immunoglobulin unresponsive Guillain-Barré syndrome: rinse or repeat? A systematic review. BMJ Neurol Open. (2025) 7:e000907. doi: 10.1136/bmjno-2024-000907
29.
Alshekhlee A Hussain Z Sultan B Katirji B . Immunotherapy for Guillain-Barre syndrome in the US hospitals. J Clin Neuromuscul Dis. (2008) 10:4–10. doi: 10.1097/CND.0b013e318182b5ce
30.
Ruts L van Koningsveld R van Doorn PA . Distinguishing acute-onset CIDP from Guillain-Barré syndrome with treatment related fluctuations. Neurology. (2005) 65:138–40. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000167549.09664.b8
31.
Ruts L Drenthen J Jacobs BC van Doorn PA Dutch GBS Study Group . Distinguishing acute-onset CIDP from fluctuating Guillain-Barre syndrome: a prospective study. Neurology. (2010) 74:1680–6. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181e07d14
32.
Abolmaali M Heidari M Zeinali M Moghaddam P Ramezani Ghamsari M Jamshidi Makiani M et al . Guillain-Barré syndrome as a parainfectious manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a case series. J Clin Neurosci. (2021) 83:119–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2020.11.013
33.
Grisanti SG Franciotta D Garnero M Zuppa A Massa F Mobilia EM et al . A case series of parainfectious Guillain-Barré syndrome linked to influenza A (H1N1) virus infection. J Neuroimmunol. (2021) 357:577605. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2021.577605
34.
Orlikowski D Porcher R Sivadon-Tardy V Quincampoix JC Raphaël JC Durand MC et al . Guillain-Barré syndrome following primary cytomegalovirus infection: a prospective cohort study. Clin Infect Dis. (2011) 52:837–44. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir074
35.
Balagholi S Dabbaghi R Eshghi P Mousavi SA Heshmati F Mohammadi S . Potential of therapeutic plasmapheresis in treatment of COVID-19 patients: immunopathogenesis and coagulopathy. Transfus Apher Sci. (2020) 59:102993. doi: 10.1016/j.transci.2020.102993
36.
Stahl K Bode C David S . First do no harm-beware the risk of therapeutic plasma exchange in severe COVID-19. Crit Care. (2020) J24:363. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03070-7
37.
Pedraza-Sánchez S Cruz-González A Palmeros-Rojas O Gálvez-Romero JL Bellanti JA Torres M . Polyvalent human immunoglobulin for infectious diseases: Potential to circumvent antimicrobial resistance. Front Immunol. (2023) 13:987231. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.987231
38.
Burford M Chou CA Sommerville RB Bucelli RC . Rapid recovery with plasma exchange in acute motor axonal neuropathy with reversible conduction failure. J Clin Neuromuscul Dis. (2019) 21:35–41. doi: 10.1097/CND.0000000000000256
39.
Bellanti R Keh RYS Keddie S Chou MKL Misheva M Smyth D et al . Plasma periaxin is a biomarker of peripheral nerve demyelination. Brain. (2025) 148:4448–60. doi: 10.1093/brain/awaf234
40.
Kroon HA Islam Z Collins P Hoehn B Humphriss E Lin P et al . Efficacy and safety of targeted immunotherapy with ANX005 in treating Guillain-Barré syndrome: a phase 3 multicenter study (PL5.006). Neurology. (2025) 104(7 Suppl 1):4954. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000212033
41.
Meglio M . Positive Phase 2 Analyses Highlight Therapeutic Potential of Imlifidase in Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Available online at: https://www.neurologylive.com/view/positive-phase-2-analyses-highlight-therapeutic-potential-imlifidase-guillain-barr-syndrome (Accessed December 4, 2025).
Summary
Keywords
acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP), acute motor axonal neuropathy (AMAN), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), plasmapheresis (PP), treatment related fluctuation (TRF)
Citation
Lucchese G (2026) Plasma exchange following immunoglobulins for Guillain-Barré-Syndrome: a persisting problematic practice?. Front. Neurol. 16:1712202. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2025.1712202
Received
24 September 2025
Revised
03 December 2025
Accepted
09 December 2025
Published
08 January 2026
Volume
16 - 2025
Edited by
Xiao-Bo Wu, Nantong University, China
Reviewed by
Georgios E. Manousakis, University of Minnesota, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Lucchese.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Guglielmo Lucchese, guglielmo.lucchese@med.uni-greifswald.de; guglielmo.lucchese@unisalento.it
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.